[geeks] Java as a first language

[kevin marshall]

Assembler might be a good option as i like the concept of getting
as close to the bare metal as possible. Of course, i doubt i
would be building my utilities out of assembly any time soon, but
i would feel like i would be learning concepts that would always
be useful.

I've got several MIPS boxen at home to work with. I've also been
considering playing around with one of the Apple 1 6502 kits.
That CPU can't be too horrible complex to start with...

/KRM



On Nov 10, 2006 03:33 PM, Jonathan C. Patschke
<jp at celestrion.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, kevin marshall wrote:
> 
> > Please excuse me if this has been covered before, but would
> > any of you
> > recommend Java as a first language, and if not, any
> > recommendations?
> 
> I suppose it depends on what your goal is. If you want to play
> around
> with the computer and build neat stuff, find a language with a
> high
> enough degree of instant-reward that you don't get bored with
> it. Find
> a copy of Visual BASIC 6, or start learning Perl or PHP. If you
> decide
> you want a challenge afterwards, move on to C or Java.
> 
> If you want to learn how to write code well and how to
> implement
> algorithms well (ie: you want to make a career out of
> programming
> someday), I'll warn you right now that it's just like
> bodybuilding. It
> takes a lot of time, a lot of dedication, a lot of practice,
> and getting
> to the point where you can do useful things elegantly and well
> requires
> a lot of tedium.
> 
> I would not recommend an object-oriented first language for
> anyone who
> intends to get even remotely serious about writing software for
> the
> simple reason that most computers are not object-oriented.
> Object-oriented thinking is convenient for modeling problems,
> but it
> doesn't give a lot of insight into what's going on inside.
> 
> My first programming language was TI BASIC, back in 1983,
> followed by
> Applesoft BASIC and GW-BASIC later. In terms of bad habits,
> this was a
> less-than-ideal start. By the time I moved on to Turbo Pascal
> and C, I
> had a log of BASICisms to unlearn.
> 
> Ideally, if I'd been a little older and had a PC or Z80 back
> then, I'd
> have started with Turbo Pascal. Pascal verges on being a toy
> language,
> but Turbo Pascal is complete enough for implementing any
> algorithm that
> doesn't depend on videly variant amounts of dynamic storage.
> 
> If you want to get serious about programming, you're going to
> need to
> learn C. Whether you learn it first or whether you learn
> something like
> Perl first to get you into thinking algorithmically, there are
> very few
> "high-level" languages tha bring you as close to the machine as
> C.
> Being able to program in C very well implies an understanding
> of how
> computers work. Regardless of what the "agile programming"
> neens and
> functional programming academics would have you believe, it is
> still
> Very Important that your programs run well on actual hardware.
> 
> As a language, C is easy to learn. The K&R book is tiny, and
> the
> language is equally tiny. Conceptually, though, it's very
> heavy. You
> have to learn how to manage resources by hand.  This involves
> simultaneously thinking about data structures in abstract terms
> (records, arrays, linked lists) and in mechcanical terms of
> memory
> layout.
> 
> Once you're good at C. You're halfway towards learning Java,
> anyhow.
> You just need to stir in the OOP methodology.
> 
> Universities like to start people off in functional languages
> such as
> Scheme because a wide variety of algorithms can be implemented
> in them
> fairly elegantly, and, once you get to thinking recursively,
> Scheme has
> a very high degree of instant-reward. It's possible to take
> many of the
> concepts of a functional programming language and use them in C
> or Java,
> but you'll tend to end up not managing memory well.
> 
> I'd also recommend learning at least one assembly language. x86
> is not
> optimal because it is so complicated and has so many opcodes.
> MIPS or
> SPARC assembly is very regular, very small, and very rewarding.
> Of the
> two, I prefer MIPS.
> 
> If you pick a tiny machine (6502, Z80) or an elegant machine
> (MIPS,
> SPARC), assembly language is a pretty good place to start. it
> really
> drives home the point that programming is really nothing more
> complicated than explaining -exactly- what you want done in
> excruciating
> detail with zero ambiguity.
> 
> All that said, the language you choose isn't nearly as
> important as how
> you program in it. Don't just learn enough to hack things
> together;
> learn to program well. Learn to comment well, so that you'll
> know what
> was in your head six months ago. Your code should be as
> unambiguous to
> the reader as it is to the compiler.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Patschke ) "Some people grow out of the petty theft of
> Elgin, TX         (   childhood.  Others grow up to be CEOs and
> USA ) politicians." --Forrest Black
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks